Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (209318)	10/29/2004 7:00:29 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575214

re: Only a small portion of that immigration was willing to live in the South and I suspect they were able to acclimate quickly to the heat. You have never played golf in FL in August, have you... John PS <sarcasm>

To: tejek who wrote (209318)	10/30/2004 4:48:29 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575214

Southerners were not geneticly immune to heat or humidity, it was a matter of getting used to it. Yes, but it was not conducive to the general population. It required people who preferred heat. Most of our early immigration was from northern Europe. Only a small portion of that immigration was willing to live in the South and I suspect they were able to acclimate quickly to the heat. This makes no logical sense. There was no real fundamental difference in the beginning between the peple who went to the South and those who went North. I lived in the South before air conditioning was common and I can tell you that it was not full of people who preferred heat. The heat was also no barrier to the carpetbaggers after the Civil War. Those who went South instead of North did so because the opportunity was better at the time. slavery ended just as the industrial revolution started. Major industrial growth in the South did not start until after WW II and after Carrier invented AC. If someone wanted warm, they moved to the west coast where it was warm without the South's searing humidity. The industrial revolution started earlier, it was in full swing by the 1830s in the North. It could have been in full swing in the South except that the South already had this competing and heavily subsidised plantation system and so there was no incentive. By the time slavery ended the coal-steel-rail triangle had been operating for many years. The Civil War caused a huge increase in the industrial capacity of the North, and so when the war came to an end there was a glut of production, that is one reason the Southern industrial output remaine stagnant. Air conditioning was nice, but more people were reluctant to move South before WW2 because of the lack of work than the humidity. Without the slaves, the South did not have the population base that could support large factories. Had the south not had the slaves, then it too would have had a lot of little farms instead of big plantations, and when industrialization was an option many would have jumped at the chance. I still maintain that slavery was the one big idea that drove these two areas to become so different over time that they fought. TP